Six Sigma DMAIC Improvement StoryTo Reduce the Time for Fleet Body Shop Repairs

The Body Builders

Miami-Dade County, Florida

This project was completed and presented to the Internal Services’ Department Management Team in December 2016.

In June 2017, members of this team, under the team name of The Body Builders, participated in the Florida Sterling Council’s Team Showcase and received the award for Best Use of Tools.

In addition, this project was a recipient of a 2017 National Association of Counties (NACo) Achievement Award.

The team was comprised of the following members:

Luis Duarte

Jose Espinoza

Roy Ferreira

Amy Horton-Tavera

Rey Llerena

Pete Moolah

Mayra Morales

Nestor Suarez

Yoamel Zequeira

Alex Alfonso (Sponsor)

Jennifer Moon (Executive Sponsor)

2

Introduction

Project Selection

Management reviewed perceived problems within ISD Fleet and evaluated the need for a project using a Project Selection Matrix

Body shop repairs taking too long, the highest rated problem, was selected.

Problem(s)

(where cause is unknown and

knowing cause is desired)

Primary

Customer

(Internal or

External)

Selection Criteria

Impact on

Customer

(Accuracy,

Cost, &

Timeliness)

Need to

Improve

(Performance

Gap)

Supports

Miami Dade

Strategic

Goal(s)?

Yes or No

Overall

Rating

It takes too long to dispose vehicles Internal 3 5 Y 15

Body shop repairs take too long Internal 5 5 Y 25

Revenue for disposed cars is too low Internal 3 3 Y 9

Body shop repairs have too much

reworkInternal 4 4 Y 16

Rating Scores:5= Extreme 3= Moderate

4= High 2= Low 1=None

3

Project CharterThe team then developed a project charter:

Problem/Impact:Body repair work takes too long to complete. ISD outsources body repair work to vendors across the

County. Currently, the end-to-end time of this process is excessive

Expected Benefits:

Improved turnaround times will ensure that vehicles are returned to customer departments more

quickly. It will reduce the amount of space ISD Fleet needs to set aside for vehicles in need of body

work

Outcome Indicators:

Q1: Percentage of vehicles returned to service within 30 calendar days (approximately 20 business

days, from the date vehicle received by the ISD fleet shop)

P1: Number of days from vehicle received to vehicle returned to service

Proposed Target:Q1 Target = 90% of vehicles returned within 30 calendar days

P1 Target = 30 calendar days from vehicle received to vehicle returned to service

Strategic Alignment:Supports the County's Strategic Plan.

General Government Objective 5-2: Provide well maintained, accessible facilities and assets

In Scope: Light Fleet vehicles

Out-of-Scope:Heavy fleet vehicles, vehicles chosen for disposal (may be evaluated at a future date), and vehicles

not managed by ISD Fleet

Method Project Methodology:DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control); additionally, the project will include a

benchmarking component.

Team Members:Amy Horton-Tavera, Luis Duarte, Jose Espinoza, Roy Ferreira, Rey Llerena, Pete Moolah, Mayra

Morales, Nestor Suarez, and Yoamel Zequeira

Process Owner: Alex Alfonso

ScheduleCompletion and Review

Dates:

Completion date: September 2016. With final review in December 2016 and ongoing monthly

monitoring.

Business Case

Project Team

Objectives

Scope

4

WHOSTEP

NEED

Internal Services Department (ISD) Fleet Management Division – Auto Body Repair Process

NEED TO EXPEDITE VEHICLE BODY REPAIR WORK

END

RECEIVE/OBTAIN/

COMPLETE/BRING

OUTSIDE VENDOR

WAIT/PREPARE/

NOTIFY

(Process Owner: Alex Alfonso)

SELECT/REVIEW

ISD BODY SHOP 3 ISD SHOP, ISD BODY SHOP 3, ISD

CENTRAL OR CLIENT DEPARTMENT

Yes

Is Repair Estimate Below $1,500 And Less

Than 20% Of Vehicle Present Value?

ISD Fleet Shop: · Receive Vehicle At Its Assigned

Shop · Obtain Copy Of Police Report· Inspect Vehicle· Complete Repair Authorization

Form And Body Damage Inspection Sheet

· Bring/Tow Vehicle To ISD Body Shop 3

RECEIVE/REVIEW

REVIEW

CONDUCT/ENSURE

PICKUP/COMPLETE

INSPECT/RESEARCH/

REPAIR

· Receive Vehicle · Open Work Order In M5 System· Review Repair Authorization Form And Body Damage

Inspection Sheet

· Inspect Vehicle And Take Pictures Of Body Damage· Research Vehicle Present Value And Prepare

Recommendation For Repair Or Disposal· If Repair, Complete Scope Of Work Sheet With Body

Work Estimate

· Review Repair Estimates And Select Best Estimate (Based On Price, Estimated Vehicle Downtime)

Vehicle Disposal?

· Pick Up Vehicles For Repair· Complete Repair Work And Transport

Vehicle Back To ISD Body Shop 3

Pass Inspection? (More Than 50% Fail

Inspection)

· Conduct Quality Assurance Inspection And Ensure Job Requirements Were Met

· Inform Vendor Of Failed Inspection · Mandate Vendor To Pick Up Vehicle

And Complete Rework Repair In 7 DaysYes

No

INFORM/MANDATE

No

Yes

Key Milestone Dates

are in blue

· Select Preferred Vendor And Forward Repair Estimate Sheet With Recommendation To ISD Service Manager (SM)

· SM Reviews And Contacts Client Department Transportation Coordinator For Authorization To Repair Or Proceed With Vehicle Disposal

The team’s initial

recommendation of

eliminating approval for

repairs above $1,500 from

the ISD Service Manager

resulted in a reduction in

the number of days in

which a vehicle is returned

to service by up to 30

calendar days

· Prepare Bid Package, Include Scope Of Work For All Vehicles In Need Of Repair· Identify Vendors To Contact For Invitation To Bid From Existing Qualified Vendor

Pool (Use Judgment, Past Performance As Criteria)· Notify Vendors Of Invitation To Bid (Friday Afternoon) That Starts Monday At 6

AM, Until 3 Days Later, Wednesday Close Of Business Day

· Complete Repair Estimate Form And Send To Body Shop 3

· Only For Repairs Above $1,500, Wait For Authorized Repair Estimate Form· Select Preferred Vendor (Based On Price, Downtime) · Prepare Award Recommendation Letter· Submit Copy Of Bid Package And Award Recommendation To Clerk Of Courts · Notify Of Award To Vendor

No

· Close Work Order In M5 · Contact Client Department To Pickup Vehicle· If A Police Vehicle, Contact Police Department To

Arrange For Decals, Emergency Lighting, Brush Guard, And Cage Placement

PREPARE/IDENTIFY/

NOTIFY

COMPLETE

CLOSE/CONTACT/ARRANGE

P1- Number of

days from

vehicle received

to vehicle

returned to

service

Q1- Percentage

of vehicles

returned to

service within 30

calendar days

Process Flowchart

1) Initial

Review

2) Procurement

3) Repair

4) Quality

Control

Major Process

Steps

5

Identify Data Collection Needs

The team developed a data collection spreadsheet, each row is a Closed Work Order

Vehicle # Year Make Model Current

MileageShop Name Vendor

466A 2006 FORD F150 125,760 SDGC Advanced

3129A 2014 FORD TAURUS 29,847 PDHQ Horson

719A 2006 CHEVY IMPALA 54,242 STATION 6 Trianon

DEMOGRAPHICS

Date Of

Vehicle

Accident

Date

Vehicle

Received

At Shop

Date Scope

Of Work

Completed

Date

Scope Of

Work

Sent Out

For Bid

Date Bid

Received

Date Bid

Are

Evaluated

Date Repair

Estimate

Form Is

Completed

Date

Repair

Estimate

Form Is

Sent For

Approval

Date

Approval

For Repair

Is

Received

Date Of

Notice Of

Award

To

Vendor

Date

Vendor

Picked

Up

Vehicle

Date

Vendor

Returned

Vehicle

Date Of

Quality

Inspection

Date

Vendor

Notified Of

Failed

Inspection

Date

Vendor

Picked

Up

Vehicle

For

Rework

Date

Vendor

Returned

Vehicle

For

Rework

8/26/2015 1/14/2016 2/1/2016 2/4/2016 2/8/2016 2/10/2016 2/1016 2/10/2016 2/12/2016 2/12/2016 2/12/2016 3/21/2016 3/22/2016 3/22/2016 3/23/2016 4/4/2016

1/21/2016 2/29/2016 3/7/2016 3/11/2016 3/13/2016 3/14/2016 3/15/2015 3/15/2016 4/22/2016 4/25/2016 4/25/2016 5/5/2016 5/6/2016 N/A N/A 5/6/2016

N/A 4/7/2016 4/21/2016 4/25/2016 4/27/2016 4/28/2016 5/4/2016 5/4/2016 5/4/2016 5/5/2016 5/5/2016 6/1/2016 6/2/2016 N/A N/A 6/2/2016

MILESTONES DATES

Number Of

Days From

Unit

Received To

Scope Of

Work

Completed

Number Of

Days From

Scope Of Work

Completed To

Notice Of

Award To

Vendor

Number Of

Days From

Notice Of

Award To

Vendor To

Vehicle

Returned

Number Of Days

From Vendor

Orginal Vehicle

Returned To Final

Vehicle Returned

(After Rework)

P1: Number

Of Days From

Unit Received

To Vehicle

Returned To

Service

Q1: Percentage

Of Vehicles

Returned To

Service Within

30 Calendar

Days?

18 11 38 14 81 No

7 49 10 1 67 No

14 14 27 1 56 No

DURATION OUTCOMES

Next, the team reviewed outcome indicator data.6

Review Performance Indicator

The team collected indicator data and reviewed the performance against the target:

Q1 - % of vehicles returned to service within 30 calendar days*

(vehicles are counted in the week in which the work order is closed)

50%

20%

50%

63%

50%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WEEK BEGINNING

% Returned Within 30 Days Target

Target = 90%

Good

Gap

• Data Analysis was performed for

work order closed between May 2,

2016 and June 3, 2016.

Next, the team determined potential project savings.

On average, 49% of

vehicles were being

returned to service

within 30 days

7

Cost of Poor QualityThe team calculated the savings in officer time and reserve fleet size that Miami-Dade Police (ISD Fleet’s largest customer) can achieve if the average body shop repair time is reduced from the average of 39 calendar days to the target 30 calendar days

The savings in officer time is equivalent to 1.2 FTE’s, or approximately one additional police officer in the community. The value of this police officer time saved is over $160,000.

Next, the team stratified Q1 indicator data.

Previous

performance level

(39 days)

If performance

target is achieved

(30 days)

Annual

Savings

Number of annual

officer

hours lost

11,666 9,1662,500 officer

hours

Number of annual

pool vehicles

required

42 3210 pool

vehicles

Estimated impact of body shop repair time on

Miami-Dade Police Department

8

Stratify the Problem

The team stratified the vehicles repaired using a histogram and found:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-3.5 13.5 30.5 47.5 64.5 81.5 98.5 115.5 132.5 149.5

Fre

qu

en

cy

Number of Calendar Days from Vehicle Received to Vehicle Repaired

Work Orders Closed Between May 2, 2016 and June 3, 2016_

All Work Orders

n = 37

mean = 39.1

std dev = 24.3

18

11

4

2 2

_x

Work Orders over 30 days

n = 19mean = 55.05

51% (19) of the vehicles

repaired took over 30 days

and averaged 55 days

49% (18) of the vehicles

repaired took less than 30

days and averaged 22 days

9

Initial Review

Need Vehicle Body Repairs

Repair

VENDOR

Quality Control

Vehicle Body Repair Completed

Procurement

ISD FLEET

The team used the flowchart to compare the 19 late vehicles to those repaired on time and found:

10

The 19 late vehicles averaged 28 calendar days in the repair phase, 20 calendar days longer than the on time vehicles. This led to the problem statement.

Late Vehicle repairs

On Time Vehicle Repairs

Difference

8 3 5

14 10 4

28 8 20

5 1 4

55 22 33

Days at each phase

Total Days

Stratify the Problem

Problem Statement

“19 late vehicles took an average of 28 calendar days for the vendor to repair and return them to ISD”

11

Identify Potential Root Causes

Next, the team utilized Cause and Effects Analysis to identify potential root causes and found:

The team also looked to verify these root causes.

19 Late

Vehicles took

an average of

28 calendar

days for the

vendor to

repair and

return them to

ISD

Problem

Statement

Fishbone

Cause and

Effect Diagram

= Potential Root

Cause

Structure Of Repair Process

(Methods/Equipment/Materials)

B

Unjustified Repair Delays

(People/Environment)

All vehicles in need of repair are bid out

in the same manner

No standards in place that

group similar repairs or

establish deadlines associated

with each repair type

Work is bid out with the same

standards regardless of vehicle

damage type

Consequences assessed to the vendor for failing

to comply with repair deadlines are insufficient

Vendors do not comply with agreed upon repair deadlines

The formal procedure for

documenting vendor performance

is cumbersome for the division

A

CUnder current contract,

time frame for rework is

overly generous

12

Root Cause Verification

The team verified potential root cause B “The formal procedure for documenting vendor performance is cumbersome for the division” and potential root cause C “Under current contract, time frame for rework is overly generous” by examining the relationship between rework and the overall repair time:

ANOVA analysis showed that, on average, vehicles requiring rework take longer to repair.

YN

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Rework

Days

op

en

Boxplot of Days open

Low P Value = 0.006

13

Identify and Select CountermeasuresThe team developed countermeasures, evaluated them based on effectiveness and feasibility, and selected countermeasures for implementation

5 5 25 Y

5 5 25 Y

5 5 25 Y

5 5 25 Y

4 5 20 Y

E F O TA

5 3 15 Y

5 3 15 Y

5 4 20 Y

5 4 20 Y

E F O TA

5 4 20 Y

E F O TA

5 4 20 Y

Countermeasure Matrix

Fleet Body Shop Repairs

Problem Statement:

19 late vehicles took an average of 28 days for the vendor to repair and return them to ISD

Eff

ec

tiv

en

es

s -

E

Fe

as

ibil

ity

- F

Ov

era

ll -

O

Ratings Legend:

5 = Extremely

3 = Average

1 = Poor

Ta

ke

Ac

tio

n?

- T

A

Ye

s/N

o

Verified Root Cause - A

No standards in place that group similar repairs or establish deadlines associated with each repair type

Countermeasure B-4: Incorporate an internal rating scale system for tracking vendor performance into the new

or existing vendor pool

Countermeasure B-2: Review existing vendor award process for "Responsibility Determination" in accordance

with ISD Procurement Best Practices

Countermeasure A-1: Break body work repairs into three different categories and create standards for each

repair type. Vendors will be expected to comply with each standard

Dents and scratches -- 7 calendar day target

Accidents and non-reported body damage -- 20 to 25 calendar day target

Total loss and retirement -- 5 calendar day target (from the time a vehicle is received until it is declared a total

loss)

Countermeasure A-2: Change the layout of the facility to group vehicles into the three different categories by

repair type

*Benchmarking survey was used as a reference to develop vendor targets

Verified Root Cause - B

The formal procedure for documenting vendor performance is cumbersome for the division

Countermeasure B-1: Continue to work with ISD Procurement to expedite submittal and processing of non-

performance actions (under current contract)

Countermeasure B-3: Work with ISD Procurement to establish a new or modify existing vendor pool that

incorporates stronger incentives for timely and high quality repairs

Verified Root Cause - C

Under current contract, time frame for rework is overly generous

Countermeasure C-1: In the new or existing vendor pool (See Countermeasure B-3 ), reduce the number of

days allowed for rework

Additional Recommendation - D

Countermeasure D-1: Require higher level qualifications in the new or existing vendor pool (See

Countermeasure B-3 ), for severe body damage repairs in accordance with Industry Best Practices and

Standards

Countermeasures included:

- Breaking up body work

into three different

categories and creating

standards for each repair

type.

- Changing the layout of the

facility to group vehicles

into the three different

categories of repair type.

- Working with ISD

Procurement to establish a

new vendor pool (contract)

that incorporates stronger

incentives for timely and

high quality repairs.

14

Process:

Accident reports do not match

vehicle damage

Vehicles sit at ISD Fleet lot waiting for

appropriate paperwork from the user

department

7 7No compliance with body shop

documentation procedure 9 441

Incomplete documentation to

adhere to County policy

ISD Fleet will not proceed with repair

process without documentation

detailing each body damage

7 8No enforcement of

documentation policy 10 560

Existing staff at the Body shop

was not assisting with the

preparation of the scope of

work

Vehicles sit at the ISD Fleet lot for a

longer period of time 8 Insufficient training 8 No formal training in place 9 576

Repair estimates above

$1,500 can't be approved in

the absence of the Facility

Supervisor

Vehicles sit at the ISD Fleet shop

pending approval9

No personnel in the

shop to approve

repair(s)

9No replacement

procedure/policy in place9 729

Facility Supervisor spending

authority is too low (repair

approval threshold)

Vehicles sit at ISD Fleet lot waiting for

approval from the user departments'

Transportation Coordinator

8 9Policy that dictates spending

authority is out of date10 720

Service Manager reviews

estimates prior to Facility

Supervisor contacting the user

departments' Transportation

Coordinator

Vehicles sit at ISD Fleet lot waiting for

approval from the ISD Service

Manager

8 9

Policy that requires Service

Manager to review estimates

prior to contacting

departments' Transportation

Coordinator is out of date

10 720

1280Total Risk Priority Number =

Causes

S

E

V

Failure EffectsFailure Mode

D

E

T

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis - FMEA

Process Steps

Procurement:

Notice of award to

vendor to vehicle

returned

Initial Review:

Vehicle received to

scope of work

completed

R

P

N

O

C

C

Controls

ISD Fleet Body Shop Repairs

Lack of supervision

by the user

departments

Spending authority

hasn't increased

parallel with market

prices for body shop

repairs

Additional Process Failures and Causes

The team also used a risk analysis technique known as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to identify potential causes affecting the overall process

Next, the team developed countermeasures to address the causes of the failures.

Legend: SEV = Severity, OCC = Occurrence, DET = Detection, RPN = Risk Priority Number

15

Additional Countermeasures from FMEA

In addition, the team developed recommended actions to address the additional process failures identified in the FMEA:

Process:

S

E

V

O

C

C

D

E

T

R

P

N

Countermeasure E-1: Have ISD Fleet Management inform user

departments on existing documentation that is required at the time a

vehicle is delivered

Yes 2 3 3 18

Countermeasure E-2: Require supervisors, or their employees who submit

vehicles for repair, to submit all required documentation at the time a

vehicle is delivered to ISD Fleet Shop

Yes 2 4 1 8

Countermeasure E-3: Continue training everyone in the Body Shop

operation to write scopes of work Yes 1 2 1 2

Countermeasure E-4: Assign Lead Worker with delegation of authority to

review and approve repair work Yes 1 1 1 1

Countermeasure E-5: Increase Shop Supervisor spending authority to

$5,000 or 50% of the estimated value of the vehicle, whichever is higherYes 2 4 1 8

Countermeasure E-6: Eliminate the Service Manager from the approval

step. Service Manager will only get involved when there is a disagreement

with the departments' Transportation Coordinator

Yes 2 4 1 8

16

ISD Fleet Body Shop Repairs

"After" Risk Priority Number =

Initial Review: Vehicle

received to scope of work

completed

Procurement: Notice of

award to vendor to vehicle

returned

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis - FMEA

Action RecommendedAction

Taken?

After Action Taken

Process Steps

Legend: SEV = Severity, OCC = Occurrence, DET = Detection, RPN = Risk Priority Number

16

Identify Barriers and Aids

The team performed a Barriers and Aids analysis on the selected countermeasures:

Impact (High, Medium, or

Low)

Forces Against Implementation

MediumLimited Manpower

(Supported by Aid: A)A

ISD Management is encouraging crosstraining

and the idea of assigning a Lead Worker to

assist the facility supervisor

Medium

Process for documenting vendor non

performance actions can be cumbersome

(Supported by Aid: B and D)

BISD Management is very supportive of

processing vendor non-performance actions

High

Possible resistance from Departments on

required paperwork and increased repair

threshold

(Supported by Aid: C)

CDepartments welcome the idea of expediting

vehicle repairs

HighPossible pushback from existing

vendors (Supported by Aids: B, C and D)D

Strong partnership between ISD Fleet and ISD

Procurement

Implement 14 countermeasures to improve the number of days for the vendor to repair a

vehicle and return it to ISD Fleet

Barriers Aids

Forces For Implementation

Next, the team sought to incorporate this analysis into the team’s Action Plan.

17

Develop an Action PlanThe team identified the responsible people and implementation dates for the selected countermeasures:

Take

Action?

Yes or No

Responsible

Person(s)

Implementation

Date

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Luis Duarte

Y Nestor Suarez Complete

YAlex Alfonso

Nestor SuarezOngoing

YNestor Suarez

Luis DuartePilot in Progress

Ongoing

Fleet Body Shop Repairs

Action Plan

Countermeasure A-1: Break body work repairs into three different categories and create standards for each repair type.

Vendors will be expected to comply with each standard (Dents and Scratches, Accidents, and Total Loss)

Countermeasure A-2: Change the layout of the facility to group vehicles into the three different categories by repair type

Alex Alfonso

Nestor Suarez

Countermeasure E-1: Have ISD Fleet Management inform user departments on existing documentation that is required at

the time a vehicle is delivered

Countermeasure E-2: Require supervisors, or their employees who submit vehicles for repair, to submit all required

documentation at the time a vehicle is delivered to ISD Fleet Shop

Countermeasure E-3: Continue training everyone in the Body Shop operation to write scopes of work

Luis Duarte

ISD Fleet

ISD Procurement

Complete

October 2016

Ongoing

October 2018

Countermeasure E-6: Eliminate the Service Manager from the approval step. Service Manager will only get involved when

there is a disagreement with the departments' Transportation Coordinator

Countermeasure B-1: Continue to work with ISD Procurement to expedite submittal and processing of non-performance

actions (under current contract)

Countermeasure B-2: Review existing vendor award process for "Responsibility Determination" in accordance with ISD

Procurement Best Practices

Countermeasure B-3: Work with ISD Procurement to establish a new or modify existing vendor pool that incorporates

stronger incentives for timely and high quality repairs

Countermeasure B-4: Incorporate an internal rating scale system for tracking vendor performance into the new or existing

vendor pool

Countermeasure C-1: In the new or existing vendor pool (See Countermeasure B-3 ), reduce the number of days allowed

for rework

Countermeasure D-1: Require higher level qualifications in the new or existing vendor pool (See Countermeasure B-3 ),

for severe body damage repairs in accordance with Industry Best Practices and Standards

Countermeasure E-5: Increase Shop Supervisor spending authority to $5,000 or 50% of the estimated value of the vehicle,

whichever is higher

Countermeasure E-4: Assign Lead Worker(s) with delegation of authority to review and approve repair work

18

Ongoing Review of Selected IndicatorsThe team developed a Process Control System to monitor the process moving forward:

Target(s)Data to Collect

(Checking Item or Indicator Calculation)

Timeframe

(Frequency)

Responsibility

(Data Collection)

Q1

% of vehicles returned to

service within 30 calendar

days

90%(# of vehicles returned to service within 30 calendar

days) / (total # of vehicles returned to service)

P1

# of days from vehicle

received to vehicle return to

service

30 calendar

days

(date vehicle returned to service) - (date vehicle

received by ISD Fleet Shop)

P2

Dents and scratches: # of

days for vendor to repair

vehicle

7 calendar

days

(date vehicle returned by vendor) - (date vehicle

picked up by vendor)

P3

Accidents and non-reported

body damage: # of days for

vendor to repair vehicle

20 to 25

calendar days

(date vehicle returned by vendor) - (date vehicle

picked up by vendor)

P4

Total loss and retirement: # of

days for vendor to evaluate

vehicle

5 calendar

days

(date vehicle returned by vendor) - (date vehicle

picked up by vendor)

Tracked

Monthly

Indicators Checking and Indicator Monitoring

Process and Quality Indicators

Process Control System

Process Name: ISD Auto Body Repair Process

Process Customer: County Departments

Process Purpose: Conduct auto body repairs

Process Owner: Alex Alfonso

Critical Customer Requirements: Timely repair of light fleet vehicles in need of body

work

Luis Duarte

Outcome Indicators: Q1, P1, P2, P3, and P4

19

49%

75% 77%

69%

59% 62%

71%

87%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Returned Within 30 Days Target

No data available (implementation of new

fleet system in progress)

Project Results

We will continue to monitor the countermeasures and results. The goal is to achieve and maintain the 90% target no later than October 2018 or upon implementation of all countermeasures.

Target = 90%

Good

Note: Data analysis was not

conducted during the project

The team has been collecting indicator data to review the results of the countermeasures:

Q1 - % of vehicles returned to service within 30 calendar days*

(vehicles are counted in the week in which the work order is closed)

20

• A process flowchart can help you identify “quick wins”.

• Do not let poor quality or availability of data deter the team’s progress.

• Comparing late and on time output cycle times for each major process phase

can help stratify data.

• Risk analysis (FMEA) was a useful tool to develop additional recommendations

for process steps not included in the problem statement.

• Benchmarking was helpful when formulating vendor targets and vehicle repair

thresholds.

• Working together with the different stakeholders fostered creativity and ensured

team buy-in for the recommendations.

• Although internal support operations are often invisible to residents, they have a

direct role on the quality of public services (such as police) provided to the

community.

• ISD Fleet staff have increased their understanding of the ways data can be used

to improve performance, and have expressed interest in pursuing Lean Six

Sigma Green Belt certifications.

Lessons Learned

Thank you!